Paper ID #11848
Relevant Education in Math and Science (REMS): K-12 STEM Outreach
Program using Industrial Engineering Applications
Dr. Michael E. Kuhl, Rochester Institute of Technology
Michael E. Kuhl, PhD is a Professor in the Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at Rochester
Institute of Technology. He earned his PhD in Industrial Engineering in 1997 from North Carolina State
University. His research and teaching interests are in simulation, operations research, and decision analysis with a wide range of application areas including healthcare systems, project management, cyber
security, and supply chain systems.
Mr. John Kaemmerlen, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE)
John is a Senior Lecturer at RIT in the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, and is the Director
of the Toyota Production Systems Laboratory. His areas of concentration are Lean, Production Systems,
Facilities Planning, and Supply Chain Management. He also guides many of the capstone projects that
RIT engineering students complete in the multidisciplinary senior design program. He has been at RIT
for 7 years following 31 years at Eastman Kodak Co.
Dr. Matthew Marshall, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE)
Matthew Marshall is an Associate Professor in the Industrial and Systems Engineering Department at
Rochester Institute of Technology. He received a Ph.D. in Industrial and Operations Engineering from
the University of Michigan in 2002. He is director of the Human Performance Laboratory at RIT and
his research interests include the biomechanics of sign language interpreting and the ergonomic design of
consumer products.
Dr. Jacqueline R. Mozrall, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE)
Dr. Jacqueline Mozrall is currently serving as Interim Dean of Saunders College of Business. Prior to
joining the Saunders College as the Interim Dean, Dr. Mozrall served as Professor and Senior Associate
Dean of the Kate Gleason College of Engineering. She worked closely with the Dean to assist in achieving
college level goals, including diversifying the student body and faculty, supporting excellence in undergraduate and graduate education, fostering research and creating strong connections with employers and
alumni. Jacquie has been a member of the management team for the Women in Engineering Program
at RIT for more than 10 years. Since this time, there has been more than a tripling in the number of
women in the entering class. She has been actively engaged in program assessment for more than 10
years, serving as a program evaluator and training mentor for the Accreditation Board for Engineering
and Technology (ABET). She is also executive director and principal investigator of a $420,000 Toyota
USA foundation grant to support the development of in-lab and on-line activities linking K-12 STEM
curriculum to real-world engineering problems.
Prior to becoming Associate Dean, Jacquie served as the Department Head of Industrial and Systems
Engineering (ISE) at RIT from 2000-2010. During her tenure as department head, she had the pleasure
to work with a dedicated group of faculty and staff to further strengthen the department’s reputation for
excellence in undergraduate education while significantly increasing engagement in graduate education
and research. Strong relationships with key industry partners and alumni were created, including the
establishment of the Toyota Production Systems Lab.
Ms. Jodi L. Carville, Women in Engineering at Rochester Institute of Technology
Jodi Carville is the Director of the Women in Engineering Program at RIT. She is responsible for the
initiatives to inspire, educate, recruit, support and retain girls and women engineering students focused
on engineering careers. She has a BS in Industrial Engineering and has worked with IBM and Kodak
as an engineer and pursued a career in sales and marketing with both Kodak and Learning International.
During her career sabbatical to raise her two boys, Jodi ran a successful direct sales business for 16
c
American
Society for Engineering Education, 2015
Paper ID #11848
years; marketing children’s educational products that inspire learning. She recruited and trained women
to be business owners and served as a speaker and trainer at conferences and events across the country.
She serves on the RIT K-12 Advisory Board, is active with RIT Community and events, is President of
the Society of Women Engineers Rochester Section, and enjoys long distance biking, travel, gardening,
sporting events and family. https://rit.edu/women
c
American
Society for Engineering Education, 2015
Relevant Education in Math and Science (REMS): K-12 STEM
Outreach Program using Industrial Engineering Applications
Abstract
Relevant Education in Math and Science (REMS) is a university-led STEM outreach program
designed to use real-world industrial engineering problems to make 5th – 12th grade math and
science fun and meaningful for students. In this work, we present the nine current engineering
lab activities, developed in both in-lab and on-line format consisting of three different real-world
contexts: competitive manufacturing, distribution, and healthcare. These activities are linked to
curricular subject standards found in math and science at elementary, middle and high school
grade levels. In addition, we present the multi-phased design, development, and assessment and
evaluation process that was utilized to produce this program, including the results of over 1,300
surveys completed by students and teachers who have participated in the program activities.
1. Introduction
Connecting math and science concepts to real-world applications can help to generate student
interest in STEM disciplines and careers. There have been significant outreach efforts to engage
students in STEM-related activities, primarily with the intent of generating interest in STEM
fields, but these efforts are not necessarily intended to teach specific K-12 math and science
concepts. In this research, we present the design, development, and assessment of a universityled outreach program to address these needs. The presented work is focused on identifying and
linking 5th – 12th grade math and science concepts for solving real-world industrial engineering
problems.
Relevant Education in Math and Science (REMS) (http://www.rit.edu/kgcoe/rems ) is an
outreach program established by the Kate Gleason College of Engineering at Rochester Institute
of Technology (RIT). REMS is a program designed to use real-world industrial engineering
problems to make 5th – 12th grade math and science fun and meaningful for students. The goals
of the REMS program are to: (a) create an effective math and science curriculum for grades 5–12
with a hands-on industrial engineering focus; (b) increase the number of 5th – 12th grade math
and science teachers using age-appropriate teaching modules linking math and science to realworld industrial engineering challenges; and (c) increase the number of students who have access
to fun, age-appropriate hands-on activities that link math and science to real world industrial
engineering problems.
The curriculum is designed to provide students with an improved understanding and retention of
mathematical and scientific concepts through the use of relevant laboratory lessons based upon
real-world scenarios. On-line activities have also been developed that capture the essence of the
in-lab laboratory experiences. These on-line interactive activities provide access to a broad
national audience of teachers and students. Through participation in REMS activities, students
can realize important connections between math and science concepts and real-world problems
to stimulate their curiosity and interest in industrial engineering-related fields.
In this work, we present the nine current engineering lab activities, developed in both in-lab and
on-line format. Three different real-world contexts: competitive manufacturing, distribution, and
healthcare, serve as the backdrop for these activities (Table 1). These activities are linked to the
different curricular subject standards found in math and science at different grade levels (i.e.,
elementary, middle and high school). The on-line format versions of the activities are designed to
be used by teachers to serve as actual classroom lessons. In addition, we present the multi-phased
design, development, and assessment and evaluation process that was utilized to produce this
program, including the results of over 1,300 surveys completed by students and teachers who
have participated in these lab activities.
Table 1. Summary of activities and examples of the curricular subjects that each activity covers.
Distribution and Logistics
Contemporary Manufacturing
Activity
1) Skateboard
Assembly – Cycle
Time
2) Skateboard
Assembly – Line
Balance
3) Skateboard
Assembly –
Performance
Testing
4) Meal Picking
5) Ergonomic
Design
6) Household
Container Recycling
Healthcare
7) Patient Flow
8) Ergonomic
Picking
9) Hazmat Disposal
Description
Demonstrates the concept of 'cycle time'
within a basic assembly line, which is the time
it takes to assemble a part or product.
Students gain an appreciation for how
changing, or redesigning, the work impacts the
cycle time.
Demonstrates the process of “balancing” an
assembly line, which is designing the same
amount of work content, or time, at each
workstation.
Allows students to analyze data from
performance testing on skateboards. Students
use skateboards and ramps to demonstrate
concepts of potential and kinetic energy.
Introduces systems for meal picking at
distribution centers for patient cafeterias in
hospitals, airline meal services, etc.
Demonstrates how systems that lack
ergonomics impact the user. Students learn
how to collect and use data on human
dimensions for the purposes of design.
Allows students to analyze design systems for
recycling household containers using single
stream processes at materials recovery
facilities.
Introduces students to the analysis of patient
flow in hospital and other health care settings.
Students simulate a walk-in health care clinic
and collect data to analyze its design.
Explores how good ergonomic design of a
medical supply distribution center improves
both productivity and ease-of-use of the
system.
Explores methods used for sorting medical
waste; analyzes disadvantages of incorrect
disposal including cost of errors; students
develop ideas to make sorting easier and more
efficient.
Curricular Subjects
•
•
•
•
Comparing rational numbers
Calculating averages
Percent change & cumulative % change
Solving linear equations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Rounding
Using formulas
Slope
Solving linear equations
Potential and kinetic energy, friction
Interpolation/Extrapolation
Calculating percent error
Graphing, Line of best fit
Independent/dependent variables
Calculating averages
Analyzing data
Linear equations
Ordering rational numbers
Measures of central tendency
Box-and-whiskers plot
Standard deviation & normal distribution
Multiplying decimals
Unit conversion
Bar graphs
Modeling using cost analysis
Creating and using histograms
Using formulas
Calculating percentages
Making predictions
Collecting and analyzing data
Multiplying whole numbers
Rounding decimals
Converting units of time
Adding, subtracting, multiplying integers
Comparing numerical values
Rounding
Reading tables
The remainder of the paper presents related research work and outreach programs (section 2),
the methodology used in the design and development of the REMS program (section 3), the
REMS outreach program along with several activity descriptions (section 4), the assessment
process and corresponding results (section 5), and our conclusions and recommendations for
future work (section 6).
2. Related Work
University involved STEM outreach programs have been growing in recent years in response to
studies showing a national need to get K-12 students involved in math and science activities with
the desired outcome of students pursuing careers in STEM fields. The Colorado School of Mines
introduced a STEM outreach program for K-12 students that involves a summer camp for
students followed by graduate student support in the K-12 classrooms during the academic
year[1]. In addition, a K-12 outreach program called “STEM Academy” at Ohio Northern
University utilizes one-day field trips for students to introduce them to hands-on science and
engineering activities[2]. The Arizona Science Lab at the University of Arizona utilizes a
fieldtrip-based STEM outreach program which offers K-12 students opportunities to go through
the full engineering design, build, and test cycle[3]. These are examples of three of the various
engineering outreach programs offered by universities across the U.S. that involve hands-on lab
based activities to introduce students to STEM fields.
In addition to lab-based activities, there are a number of organizations that offer ideas for STEM
activities K-12 students can experience via the Internet. Examples of these web-based activities
include: TEACH Engineering[4] (https://www.teachengineering.org/ ) which provides
curriculum ideas for K-12 teachers with over 1000 theme based, standards-aligned engineering
lessons and hands-on activities for use in science, engineering, and math classrooms; Try
Engineering[5] (http://tryengineering.org/ ) provides STEM resources for students, parents,
teachers and guidance counselors; and Design Squad Nation[6] (http://pbskids.org/designsquad/ )
provides lesson plan ideas, activities, animations, and video profiles to use in classrooms or at
home.
The REMS outreach program that we have developed builds on these ideas for hands-on STEM
activities for K-12 students and directly links the engineering activities to specific K-12
curricular subjects. Furthermore, the REMS activities provide lesson plans for teachers in both
in-lab and on-line formats.
3. Design and Development Methodology for REMS Activities
The design and development methodology for the REMS activities centers on the goal of
providing fun, age-appropriate, hands-on activities that link math and science to real world
problems for students in grades 5-12. In this section we describe the design process we utilize to
successfully develop and execute the REMS program including establishing the development
team; establishing target math/science lessons for the REMS activities; utilizing an iterative
development process for lab activities; implementing in-lab and on-line activities; and assessing
the program.
The first step in the design process was to establish a core team of individuals with strong
interest in engineering outreach for K-12 students. Our team includes several industrial and
systems engineering faculty members; a college of engineering outreach staff member; a K-12
STEM education consultant and outreach liaison; and a group of graduate students. The team
met regularly to design, develop, and assess the activities.
The fundamental aspect of each activity is identifying interesting and challenging industrial and
systems engineering application and the specific corresponding STEM concepts found in
standard K-12 curricula. An example activity involving cycle time analysis of a skateboard
assembly line and the corresponding curricular subjects actively used in the activity is shown in
Figure 1. For each activity, a full lesson plan is provided that includes the objectives, an estimate
of time required, setup instructions, step by step lesson plan instructions, interactive activity
worksheets, explanations of simulation videos (if applicable), and answer keys. The lesson plans
are designed for each of the activities at three academic levels – elementary (grades 5-6), middle
(grades 7-8), and high (grades 9-12) school.
Figure 1: Example REMS activity descripton and corresponding curricular concepts.
The design of each in-lab and corresponding on-line activity involves a four stage process
including: (1) Development; (2) Alpha Testing; (3) Beta Testing; and (4) Production/Continuous
Improvement. The initial Development phase involves establishing the industrial and systems
engineering application and corresponding curricular concepts. Then the interactive, hands-on
student activities and initial lesson plans are developed. Next, Alpha Testing of the activity
includes real-time execution of the activity with members of the team and others willing to
participate. Alpha Testing provides feedback on the content, time-required, projections of
perceived effectiveness and interest of the activities. In the next phase, Beta Testing, we
introduce the activities to targeted students and teachers in grades 5-12. Beta Testing provides
both formal and informal feedback on the activities through surveys and discussions with the
participants. From this feedback, appropriate changes to activities are implemented leading to the
final phase, Production/Continuous Improvement, and making the program activities generally
available for use. In the production/continuous improvement phase, we solicit feedback through
surveys from students and educators to try to improve the activities on an on-going basis. The
design and development of the on-line versions of the activities follows a parallel process.
The implementation of the REMS outreach program in terms of student and teacher participation
has taken several avenues. The in-lab activities are conducted in our university labs and led by
faculty and graduate students. Student participation has been primarily in groups including
school or organization field trips or as part of university sponsored day or overnight camps for
students. The on-line activities are provided through the university’s college of engineering
website and are available for anyone to use.
Throughout the design and development process, interaction with teachers has proven critical to
the success of the program. We recognized that for the activities to be used by teachers, they
needed to be relevant to the curriculum they are expected to cover, and be user friendly. When
we started the development of the activities we met with teachers who told us if it took them
more than a short amount of time to figure out how to use an exercise, they wouldn’t use it. The
documentation that was created for the activities and posted on the web site is detailed enough
that the teachers (some of whom told us “remember, we are math teachers, we are not
engineers”) hopefully can set up what they need to do fairly quickly. In addition, in setting up
the web site for the online activities, we considered that when teachers explore the internet for
“real-life” activities that are relevant to their curricula, and they sort on words that are
meaningful to them, the REMs web site will come up on the list. At one point in our
development work, a teacher who helped us by supplying a list of example search words such as:
“independent and dependent variables, critical thinking, problem solving, and engineering
applications”. As a result, the activities we use in some cases have multiple titles; one relevant
to the physical activity, and one relevant to the academic content.
Finally, formal assessment of the REMS program has been conducted primarily through the use
of surveys designed to obtain feedback from educator and students. The assessment provides
information on the content of the lab activities as well as the interest level they provide. An
analysis of the assessment data that we have gathered thus far is discussed in section 5.
4. Current State and Examples of REMS Activities
In this section, we present an overview of the current state of the REMS activities. Currently,
nine activities have been developed and each activity includes an in-lab and online version. The
in-lab activities predominately use the Toyota Production Systems Laboratory at RIT as the
setting, while the online versions use one of two basic approaches to provide the targeted
learning experience. In some cases, activities can be recreated in the classroom using supplies
that are available in a typical K-12 classroom. In cases where it may not be possible to recreate
the experience of the in-lab activities, computer simulations of the activities were created to
enable access.
Table 1 lists each of the nine activities, along with a brief description of each activity and a
listing of the curricular subjects that each activity covers. Coverage of the curricular subjects
depends on the age and math-level of the students. In the next sections, we describe in more
detail the skateboard assembly line balancing and cycle time activities and the ergonomic design
activity. The complete instructions, lesson plans, etc. for each of the activities listed in Table 1
are available at the following link: http://www.rit.edu/kgcoe/rems .
4.1 Skateboard Assembly: Line Balancing and Cycle Time Activities
A skateboard assembly line has been developed as the basis for several of the REMS activities to
illustrate the engineering concepts encountered in a manufacturing environment relative to the
design and efficient operation of production lines. For these activities, we are able to take
advantage of the assembly line capabilities that are available in the Toyota Production Systems
Laboratory to demonstrate the engineering concepts of assembly lines, cycle times, productivity,
utilization, throughput, learning curves, bottlenecks, and random variation of data.
Two of the manufacturing activities are Line Balancing and Cycle Time. Both of these activities
are centered on assembling skateboards, which provides students with a product that they are
familiar with and many enjoy using. An assembly line is setup with work tasks assigned to each
of between 4 and 8 stations. The students are assigned to either perform a portion of the
assembly at one of the stations, or to collect time study data. They are trained in the assembly
method, and then the students run the line for a set period of time. Their productivity as a team is
calculated. The data collected at each workstation is discussed – averages of the cycle times,
amount of variation, learning curve impacts, effects of the process design versus the person
doing the task, etc. Then improvement ideas are discussed, agreements are made regarding which
ideas to implement in the next trial, and the line is rerun for the same period of time with the
students switching their roles. The difference between the two activities is that for Cycle Time
the changes that are explored are more at the detailed level (e.g. parts placement, methods,
training, hand motions), while the Line Balancing activity focuses more on systems-level
changes (e.g. reassigning work from a busy workstation to a less busy station, adding or
subtracting people).
When this activity is run in the lab, it is a very interactive experience for the students. To
approximate that experience for the online version of the Line Balancing and Cycle Time
activities, a computer simulation of the assembly line was developed (see Figure 2). The actual
assembly process was videotaped and a narrated video posted on the REMS website; in addition,
narrated videos of the simulation runs were posted as well. The simulation videos include
pertinent metrics such as worker utilization and cycle times. Scenarios were chosen for each of
the two activities so that a teacher in a classroom could conduct a discussion such as, “we just
watched the assembly line run and perform at a certain level, what could be changed to make it
run better?” The students in the classroom could have a discussion, examine if their ideas match
the scenarios that were developed and posted online, and then see how a subsequent run of the
line under different conditions compares to the initial run in terms of the key performance
metrics.
In the two activities described in this section (depending on the grade level of the students),
classroom concepts that can be reinforced include calculating averages, examining the variability
of a data set (e.g. standard deviation), calculating percent improvement, converting pieces
produced to a rate, using a bar chart to visualize different workstation utilizations, understanding
units of measure, converting time data to costs, linear equations, and others.
Figure 2. Skateboard assembly activities: (a) student assembling skateboards during an in-lab
activity; and (b) simulation example used in the on-line activity.
4.2 Ergonomic Design Activity
The Ergonomic Design activity centers about the design of a manufacturing workstation. The
objective of the fifty-minute module is to demonstrate the importance of considering the human
user when designing the physical space in which individuals work. Two important concepts that
were the emphasis of this module are ergonomics, which is the principle of designing systems
that are within the physical capabilities of human users, and anthropometry, which is the study of
the size and shape of people. Prior to the hands-on portion of the module, a brief presentation is
given to introduce students to these two concepts, and the facilitator leads a discussion on what
scenarios students have encountered in which the physical demands of the system exceeded the
physical capability of the student. Common examples that are brought up during this discussion
include reaching for a cupboard that is too high or opening a jar with a lid that is too tightly
fastened.
In both the in-lab and online versions of this module, students interact with a physical system
that intentionally lacks compatibility with the physical size of the students. For the in-lab
activity, students perform a simple assembly task that requires them to reach for and gather parts
from bins that are located too far away (Figure 3). For the online activity, teachers gather chairs
of varying heights (e.g., chairs for elementary students and chairs for adults) or adjustable chairs
adjusted in the extreme high or low position, and students sit in each chair to experience the
effects of a chair that is too high (dangling feet) or too low (raised knees, poorly distributed seat
support).
Having experienced the discomfort or inconvenience of a system that is poorly designed with
respect to the bodily dimensions of the target audience, students are then led through a discussion
on what the critical dimensions are for the system design (reach distances, lower leg length, etc.)
and what corresponding anthropometric measurements are needed in order make informed
decisions about proper design (arm reach, seat pan height, etc.). Students then work in small
groups to perform an anthropometric survey to collect data of the bodily dimensions of the group
of students. This is a very hands-on activity that exposes students to the variables that affect data
collection of linear measurements (precision, measurement error, etc.). Once data are compiled,
students summarize the data in a manner appropriate for the students’ level of math. Students
then compare the summarized data to the dimensions of the system and draw conclusions about
the extent to which the system “fits” the students. The students generally conclude that the
system poorly accommodates the class, and discussion ensues about what changes would need to
be made to make the system more compatible with the student users. To conclude the activity,
students make adjustments to the physical dimension of the system in order to improve how the
system fits the students. Students then repeat the assembly operation (in lab) or adjust their chair
(online) to the ideal height in order to experience and contrast the benefit of a well-designed
system.
In this activity, some of the curricular subjects utilized include ordering rational numbers,
measures of central tendency, box-and-whiskers plots, standard deviation, and the normal
distribution. Again, various levels of presentation and analysis of the curricular subjects are
provided to be grade-level appropriate.
Figure 3: Example of workstation setup before redesign.
5. Assessment
Student and educator surveys were developed, and feedback obtained, to assess both the on-site
and on-line activities. The questions were aimed at evaluating whether the students liked the
activity, how the activity impacted their understanding of math and science and STEM
applications, and how their curiosity in STEM was impacted. An example of the complete survey
is shown in Figure 4 and includes the following statements to which students responded:
1. Activity was interesting and fun.
2. Activity increased my understanding of how math/science is used to solve real-world
engineering problems.
3. Activity showed a connection to math/science classes.
4. Activity will motivate me to be more interested in my math and science courses.
SkMPeNoMrd AssemNly Fycle Time
Relevant Education in Math & Science Program
Student Activity Questionnaire
Date: ____________________
Gender:
Male
Grade in School: __________________________
Female
Ethnicity (Circle one) :
Asian
African American
Questions
Hispanic
Caucasian (White)
Strongly
Agree
Other
Mark an "X" for each question
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
This Activity…
was interesting and fun.
increased my understanding of how math/science is used to solve
real-world engineering problems.
showed a connection to my math/science classes.
will motivate me to be more interested in my math and science courses.
Additional Comments:
Figure 4. Example of student activity questionnaire used for assessment.
Figure 5 summarizes the results of the surveys that were administered to students who
participated in the activities. The figures present a weighted average of the percentage of
students who “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with each of the four questions. For the in-lab
activities, a total of 644 surveys were completed (163 elementary, 426 middle school, 55 high
school) across all nine activities. For the online activities, a total of 698 surveys were completed
(121 elementary, 539 middle school, 38 high school).
(a)
(b)
Figure 5: Percentage of respondents who “agree” or “strongly agree” with each survey question
for in-lab (a) and online (b) activities. Responses are a weighted average across all nine
activities.
For both in-lab and online activities, students thought the activities were fun and interesting and
increased their understanding of how math/science is used to solve real-world problems. Online
activities seemed to do a slightly better job of showing a connection to math/science class,
especially for middle school; maybe this was because these sessions were mostly teacher-led as
opposed to the in-lab activities which were often conducted by university faculty and graduate
students. It would make sense that teachers could better relate what was being covered in class.
Scores were lowest for motivating interest in math and science courses, but we contend that a
large percentage is lofty goal for a single activity. In that light, numbers in the 50-60% range are
quite good, in our opinion.
Assessment and evaluation of all of the in-lab and online activities informed continuous
improvement throughout the life of the project. Student comments as well as educator comments
were also captured that assisted in driving continuous improvement. All of this data was
evaluated throughout the development process, and improvements were made. Table 2 shows an
example of the continuous improvement aspect of this project. The “Initial” column in the table
shows the feedback we received from two groups of students who completed one of our
activities shortly after the completion of the testing phase. We were not pleased that the percent
of students who responded with “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” to the statements on the “Student
Activity Questionnaire” was so low. So we made some design changes to the activity, and
implemented the changes. The most common changes made across all activities involved
engaging the participants more and reducing the amount of time the facilitator spent talking.
Improvement to the activities is also confounded by the improvement that naturally occurs
through repeated performance. The 2nd column titled “Improved” shows the results from two
different groups of students who experienced the same activity in the lab four months after the
first group. The improvement to the scores was significant.
Table 2. Example of continuous improvement supported by assessment data.
Evaluation of the in-lab Meal Picking Activity student assessments during initial activity
implementation, 7/9-10/2013 sessions, compared to improved activity after several In-Lab
activities were conducted. Improved results shown for sessions conducted 11/6-20/2013.
Assessment Question
This activity…
Question 1: was interesting and fun.
Question 2: increased my understanding of how math/science is used
to solve real-world engineering problems.
Question 3: showed a connection to math/science classes.
Question 4: will motivate me to be more interested in my math and
science courses.
Meal Picking Activity
% Students Who
Strongly Agreed or Agreed
INITIAL
IMPROVED
DATE RANGE: DATE RANGE:
7/9 - 7/10
11/6 - 11/20
# Sessions: 2
# Sessions: 2
N
%
N
%
24
79% 23
91%
24
24
54%
35%
23
23
87%
83%
24
38%
23
78%
6. Conclusions and Future Work
Though the development of the REMS outreach program we have been able to create an
effective math and science curriculum activities for grades 5–12 with a hands-on industrial
engineering focus. This outreach program uses age-appropriate teaching activities linking math
and science to real-world industrial engineering challenges. Through the deployment of the
activities we have been able to reach out to many students and expose them to STEM
applications. Furthermore, the REMS program provides a model for outreach programs for
students who have access to fun, age-appropriate hands-on activities that link math and science
to real world industrial engineering problems.
In terms of future work, we plan to continue to work with our university K-12 outreach group as
we continue to receive requests from schools and other groups that educate and / or provide
STEM related activities for students. We will continue to use the surveys that are in place to
collect feedback from the participants and their adult guides / sponsors, and utilize the feedback
to make modifications and to continuously improve the program.
7. Acknowledgements
The development of the REMS program was made possible through a grant from the Toyota
USA Foundation. In addition to the authors of this paper, significant contributions to the REMS
program have been provided by the following individuals: Dr. Andres Carrano, Tina Bonfiglio,
Arlene Meyer, Karen Ester, Rami Abuabara, Abbey Donner, Atul Ghadge, Elizabeth Khol,
Sourabh Jain, Catina Jelfo, Jennifer Leone, Christian Lopez, Sean Murnan, Kaitlin Peranski, Tim
Schmoke, Ajith Sharma, Manuel Sosa, Srinath Sriram, Kshitij Luthria, Clayton Tontarski, Jeff
Wojtusik, and Fatma (Selin) Yanikara. Finally, we acknowledge the support provided by the
Women in Engineering (WE@RIT) program, the Toyota Production System Laboratory, and the
Industrial and Systems Engineering Department at RIT.
References
[1] Reeping, D., & Reid, K. (2014). Student Perceptions of Engineering after a K-12 Outreach--a" STEM
Academy. In, Proceedings of the 2014 ASEE North Central Section Conference, American Society for
Engineering Education.
[2] Innes, T., Johnson, A. M., Bishop, K. L., Harvey, J., & Reisslein, M. (2012). The Arizona Science Lab (ASL):
Fieldtrip based STEM outreach with a full engineering design, build, and test cycle. Global Journal of
Engineering Education, 14(3), 225-232.
[3] Moskal, B. M., & Skokan, C. K. (2011). Supporting the K-12 classroom through university outreach. Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 15(1), 53-75.
[4] TEACH Engineering, Available on-line via https://www.teachengineering.org/ .
[5] Try Engineering, Available on-line via http://tryengineering.org/ .
[6] Design Squad Nation, Available on-line via http://pbskids.org/designsquad/ .